D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[Maxperson]

I also think that the designers have a completely different philosophy on what the purpose of rules are for the game, when I think about it. Some people think rules are there to make a storytelling exercise into a game. Tools used to let a lost DM know what to do next or to challenge the players.

I think the designers interpret rules as a protection against DM's considering things going horribly for the players. If combat didn't imply possible death, the designers probably would have made it a single dice roll. Same for food and suffocation and falling.

The DM may interpret "I want to fight the ogre band" as "I think it would be more dramatic to get killed by the ogre band." But the rules remind the DM that the players stand a chance.

Likewise, a DM may interpret "I jump off the airship" as "I don't want to live anymore" but the rules reminds the DM that a level 20 barbarian absolutely can walk out of such a impressive feat.

I have to say that I've been DMing since 1983 and I've never once needed the rules to remind me not to kill off the PCs without giving them a chance.

 

[Mordhau]

Tangentially, to some extent.

Invisibility is a spell effect (usually) and spell rules are pretty hard and fast and more or less always have been.

But take lockpicking. Time was, any character could try this and not necessarily auto-fail but a few classes were clearly better at it. Eventually, that morphed into don't even try unless you've got the skill or ability as you'll auto-fail every time.

Same with knowledge. Before 3e codified knowledge into the skill system any character might have some limited knowledge of pretty much anything, based usually on Intelligence and in some cases on class or background. But once that codified system hit, characters without knowledge skills suddenly seemed to know a whole lot less than they used to (as in, often next to nothing) while characters with knowledge skills knew a lot more about a few specific areas.

I think you need to read the post again. If something's still not clear please feel free to ask?

 

[Hussar]

Tangentially, to some extent.

Invisibility is a spell effect (usually) and spell rules are pretty hard and fast and more or less always have been.

But take lockpicking. Time was, any character could try this and not necessarily auto-fail but a few classes were clearly better at it. Eventually, that morphed into don't even try unless you've got the skill or ability as you'll auto-fail every time.

Same with knowledge. Before 3e codified knowledge into the skill system any character might have some limited knowledge of pretty much anything, based usually on Intelligence and in some cases on class or background. But once that codified system hit, characters without knowledge skills suddenly seemed to know a whole lot less than they used to (as in, often next to nothing) while characters with knowledge skills knew a lot more about a few specific areas.

See there’s a reason for this change

Players got very tired of Mother-May-I and Calvinball. Everything your character knows or can do is gated behind the DMs screen. So the players never actually know if they know something or can do something.

Which means the players can never make informed decisions. Which in turn pushes the players even harder towards game elements which allow them to make informed decisions.

Rules absent mechanics are the reason you’ve seen DnD change the way it has.

You can try anything always comes with the caveat of “so long as you can convince your DM”.

 

[Hussar]

In theory, yes it did. How often did it ever see the light of day, is the question.

Which is cool, but that sort of inventiveness wasn't encouraged in the least in the 3e PH (nor the 4e, if memory serves). Contrast this with the advice in both the PH and DMG for 1e, which had much more of a try-anything vibe.

That is very much untrue.

4e has probably the best support for “try anything “ of any edition of the game bar none.

Not only did it give very strong guidelines for how to adjudicate try anything, but it also strongly advised and encouraged dms and players to do so.

I mean, can my character swim in 1e? Well ask the dm and your dm will tell you what off the cuff “roll high” method he or she is using today. In 4e, not only is there a skill system in place but also a power system and a page 42 system. If you can’t call me up with a ruling that is not only consistent with your own table but also likely consistent with most other tables, you aren’t trying very hard

 

[Mordhau]

I find the idea this is some sort of modern edition vs old edition things a bit weird.

D&D has always had magic, and had magic items. And class abilities like the Ranger's pass without trace or the Thief skills.

It's always been the type of game that lays out specific options for players.

There are rules light games out there that don't really do this. D&D has never been one of those.

The difference I was talking about was not between can try or not try it was between can try and can explicitly do.

Or to try and think of it a different way, if a Thief has Climb Walls 90% then he is probably thinking further ahead. I can climb the wall and then I can do X and then I can do Y.

Bob the Fighter may be able to climb the wall. But until he knows whether he can or not there's not much point thinking further ahead. He's limited in the ability to leverage climbing the wall.

I find that when players are doing that dreaded thing, looking at their character sheets, they're looking for ideas, for things they can leverage. Despite arguments to the contrary, this was always a part of old school play. What equipment have I got? How might I leverage some rope, a mirror, a ten foot pole and some spikes to get past this trap?

 

[Aldarc]

FWIW, 4e D&D seemed to roughly divide all this up into two "pillars" of sorts: combat challenges and non-combat challenges. That is likely because combat followed its own guides and subsystems whereas both social and exploration (to borrow 5e's pillars) basically used the same guidelines - skill challenges and the like - as there is not all that much difference between getting past a door and getting past a person: i.e., roll a check or skill challenge.

I also think that the designers have a completely different philosophy on what the purpose of rules are for the game, when I think about it. Some people think rules are there to make a storytelling exercise into a game. Tools used to let a lost DM know what to do next or to challenge the players.

I think the designers interpret rules as a protection against DM's considering things going horribly for the players. If combat didn't imply possible death, the designers probably would have made it a single dice roll. Same for food and suffocation and falling.

The DM may interpret "I want to fight the ogre band" as "I think it would be more dramatic to get killed by the ogre band." But the rules remind the DM that the players stand a chance.

Likewise, a DM may interpret "I jump off the airship" as "I don't want to live anymore" but the rules reminds the DM that a level 20 barbarian absolutely can walk out of such a impressive feat.

I would probably be more inclined to agree with you IF you were talking about either 3e D&D or 4e D&D, but not 5e D&D, which strikes me as an edition that wanted to dial back the player-facing rules protection in favor of DM empowerment.

 

[Hussar]

To be fair though, 5e does have a LOT of player facing rules.

Take the evolution of jumping. Pre-3e,jumping was whatever the DM thought it was. In 3 and 4e, jumping is based on skill+die roll.

In 5e you just jump Str feet. No roll. No chance of failure. It’s just another movement type.

Can’t get much more player facing than that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be fair though, 5e does have a LOT of player facing rules.

Take the evolution of jumping. Pre-3e,jumping was whatever the DM thought it was. In 3 and 4e, jumping is based on skill+die roll.

In 5e you just jump Str feet. No roll. No chance of failure. It’s just another movement type.

Can’t get much more player facing than that.

Until the GM thinks the outcome is uncertain, that is.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This reads, and correct if wrong, that you're saying that rules exist to prevent GMs from just killing or doing horrible things to PCs. I mean, I have lots and lots of disagreements with this, but I'd prefer a petard of your own making -- if this is true, how do you square it with the clear statement that rules are free to be changed or ignored by a GM if it serves the story? How can rules be a bulwark against GMs going off the rails while at the same time GMs are fully authorized to ignore them?

Not my post obviously, but I think I can answer that question in the abstract at least. Because I see two ways.

1) Guide rails. A lot of the time, and I mean A LOT of the time, people do things that annoy others or cause them discomfort by accident. Rules may not be able to stop someone who is actively malicious, but they can guide someone who is passively going to make similar mistakes.

2) Peer Pressure. By having to actively change the rules, you are highlighting what you are doing. This creates peer pressure when the players know, but also it creates a disconnected sort of peer pressure because you have to know that you are purposefully making this change. Now, there are entire libraries written on whether Peer Pressure can be for good or for ill (I think it is simply a tool) but it can act as a deterrent for going overboard, because humans are social creatures.

My two cents at least, on the question of how rules you can change might prevent bad or poor DMing

Rules exist to define the space of play -- what play will be about and where play will occur (for D&D, on paper, with dice, and in our imaginations). They then provide a way to resolve conflicts in that space -- who gets to say what happens and how. I mean, we can look to Monopoly to see this -- the rules state play takes place on the board and with cards and with fake money. They establish roles and responsibilities (the banker, a player). They establish the order of play, and they establish how to resolve conflicts in play by saying what happens when and who has a say. So, when I land on an unpurchased space, and everyone wants something to happen, the rules say that it's the player whose turn it is gets to decide first -- do they purchase the property at the listed price or do they refuse. If they refuse, the rules establish how the space will be auctioned off -- someone must purchase the space before play continues. There are, of course, many other rules, but none of these rules exist with a primary purpose of stopping a player from setting fire to the board. Similarly, no rules in D&D exist to stop a GM from burning their game to the ground. Because that's not the point of the rules -- it's not to primarily stop GMs who are just making it all up as they go from making up wrong things. The rules exist to establish the play spaces, how play progresses, and how to resolve conflicts in that space. Combat isn't there to stop a GM from just declaring a party dead to ogres, but to resolve the difference of opinion in what should happen next. It acts on all parties.

I agree with all of this, but I think the difference in Monopoly and something like Football. Football has many, many rules about the things you are not allowed to do, because the game space is so much larger and more varied, that that is easier than telling people what they are allowed to do.

When you get to something like the DnD and its vast possibilities, you can end up with rules that are designed to prevent, rather than to facilitate. And I think this shows that rules can be both things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Tangentially, to some extent.

Invisibility is a spell effect (usually) and spell rules are pretty hard and fast and more or less always have been.

But take lockpicking. Time was, any character could try this and not necessarily auto-fail but a few classes were clearly better at it. Eventually, that morphed into don't even try unless you've got the skill or ability as you'll auto-fail every time.

To be fair, 5e has rolled this back a lot. Technically anyone can try to lockpick, and even more technically, you don't even need lockpicks to try it. IT is the difference between:

Roll mod with disadvantage -> Roll Mod -> Roll Mod with Proficiency -> Roll Mod with Expertise


The issue (if you can even call it that) is that a lot of players recognize this is a team game. And that means that while, yes, the character with no proficiency could absolutely try, there is a guy who got lockpicks and has proficiency, so he should be the one to try it. This is compounded by the fact of multiple resolution paths, but only allowing a single binary success/fail. If you have the choice between "rolling mod with disadvantage" for trying to lockpick with a hairpin which is silent or "roll mod with proficiency" for shattering the door with your mighty thews... well, you know that you aren't likely to succeed the first way, so you ignore it and move on to how you can succeed.

These issues combine to create the reality of the game, where no one really tries anything unless they are the one proficient and with the highest mod, because success is binary, and you don't want to be the one who fails on an important point.


I also want to rollback and address something else. The fact that DnD is a team game really isn't thought about enough in terms of the fiction we reference. Conan, Elric, ect they may have "companions" but how often are the heroes left to do everything except one or two specific tasks? Think for a moment about Bilbo being a thief. With both Gollum and with Smaug (two of the best scenes) Bilbo is alone. Same with the spiders in the forest or the Trolls, the dwarves had been kidnapped and he was rescuing them.

This leads us, I think, to want our heroes to be incredibly versatile. You should be able to talk and steal and fight and hide and run and maybe even do magic. But, if you try and build that sort of character, unless you get very lucky, you are just second string to the others who are specialists. And since each scene is really being conceived as a challenge one person can do, then it leads to this weird space where only one or two characters participate while the others (much like the dwarves vis a vis Smaug) are left waiting outside the Mountain.

And interestingly, this also explains why everyone is good at combat, because everyone is forced to participate in combat, and everyone had to get good at it, in the course of the game's design, because while the theif might go and unlock doors alone, no one is expected to fight solo while the rest of the party watches.